Multiple deliveries

Projects delivered in multiple phases or releases on different dates do not always fit easily into a conventional project management lifecycle. Here, Dave Treby of Capgemini looks at alternative approaches that offer the project manager and more importantly the client piece of mind.

Have you ever thought of yourself as midwife? As project managers we are primarily responsible for a delivery, our job is usually to bring something new into the world. To facilitate this happening safely and with minimum discomfort to those involved we must support those who actually deliver, not just during the delivery but also throughout the planning and preparation. We need to consider the risks of what could go wrong and be prepared to deal with any emergency, having assessed the degree of risk and made sure that specialist resources are on hand as appropriate. During the long months of preparation it is wise to instigate a series of regular checks, to ensure that everything is progressing as planned, and there are no signs of a developing emergency.

One situation that will demand some additional attention from a midwife is a multiple birth, and the same will apply to a project manager.

At this point I should probably drop the birth metaphor, before I get myself too tangled up. In the project context I am thinking of multiple deliveries a project which must implement in a number of separate phases or releases on different dates (thats the human birth metaphor gone then!), but all managed within one project, and perhaps delivered by one team. Such projects can present particular problems, and do not fit easily into a classic project management life cycle.

Waterfall

In a traditional waterfall approach, the project is divided into a number of phases, with a gate reveiw controlling movement from one phase to the next. Terminology for the phase names varies, a typical example for an IT project (using the terms in the APM BoK) would be:

• Concept
• Definition
• Design
• Build
• Handover and closeout

(See fig. 1).

For multiple deliveries use of this model in its standard form implies that we must define all the deliveries, then design them all, before we begin building them and implementing them one at a time. With no time constraints on the project this may be a low-risk approach, but it is rarely acceptable to the customer, who will usually be looking for early deliveries to be implemented while later ones are still being prepared.

An equally unacceptable approach would be a sequence of waterfalls (a cascade?), completing the first implementation before beginning the next delivery through all of its phases. This would bring the first delivery in earlier but would extend the overall timetable still further, increasing cost and effectively turning each delivery into a project in its own right.

(Above: Figure 1 - Waterfall approach)

Alternatives

So what options are there for a more efficient approach? For a software development Agile could provide a good solution. Provided the organisation is experienced in the Agile approach, and therefore has the processes in place to facilitate Review Gates and the related funding approvals around an iterative approach, then this can work well.

One constraint of this approach may be resource availability. For example there may not be sufficient designers to facilitate three parallel Design Phases. This could be eased by stretching the timeline and paralleling no more than two design phases at a time. Tuning of this kind will help to fit the approach to the organisation, project and customer requirements.

A further complication may be managing the gateways between phases. Organisations with relatively informal processes may have no problem, but larger organisations, particularly government departments or their suppliers, will need to follow a strict series of gateways and funding approvals. Running a Review gate at the end of every phase in every stream is time consuming and resource hungry, though it may be the only option in larger projects. If so then the question should be considered as to whether this is in fact is one project, rather than one programme encompassing a number of projects.

For greater efficiency, we can try to negotiate a special arrangement with the customer (a compromise, but in some organisations that term is not diplomatic!). This will depend on a good one team relationship between supplier and customer, and will have advantages for both sides. The optimum approach will depend on the time line, but we can consider linking approvals to the calendar rather than phases for example by reviewing the project plan and agreeing a gateway in a specific month, at which point one stream may have completed Design and moved into Build, while other streams are still working on Design. As supplier we will need to be astute with our forecasting, and the customer will need to be flexible with their approvals process.

A variation on this approach would be to link the gateway to completion of a phase in the first stream, at which point the customer approves budget for the next phase in this stream and whatever work is done in the same period in the other streams (see Fig. 2). An implementation date might similarly trigger a final approval for that phase and also further approval and funding for continuing work in other streams.

(Above: Figure 2 - Funding stages with parallel streams)

The variations are many, and each would need to be negotiated with the customer, and also with any supplier department having input into review gates, such as quality assurance. The effort put into that negotiation will be well rewarded during the later stages of the project.

Projects with more than one delivery can present special problems and need looking after carefully, but can often prove to be an efficient strategy if managed well. If these principles are applied during the planning of a project then some time later the team can celebrate several new births and there should be no crying to be heard after a successful multiple delivery!

• Dave Treby, MAPM, has a total of 20 years experience in IT, where he has been project manager for 11 years and an APM member for 9. He is currently managing projects at global consulting, technology and outsourcing firm Capgemini.